spin

It's too hard to get Steven Avery to overcome his logorrhoea and make cases based on evidence.

Having already said that my memory could be wrong and invited him to demonstrate it, I can't do more until he takes the bit in his mouth.


spin

aChristian

Spin, it is obvious that you are the one who is ignorant of the original texts. You should read Pickering's book if you want to educate yourself on textual criticism. You have been unable to answer Steve Avery's request for proof of your position. Your responses remind me of the time that I had you pinned down and you kept trying to argue that Gesenius' lexicon was wrong. You just seem to be unable to admit that you are wrong, even when it is obvious to all that you are.

spin

Steven Avery wouldn't understand an original text if he held one in his hand. I'd probably have trouble with the font.

Try to discuss anything about what the Greek text actually says and he will drop the issue like hot coal. He simply cannot understand it and won't learn.

Nice try.

Steven Avery was shooting his mouth off as he usually does about how horrendous Hort's text was. He produced no evidence whatsoever. I told him what I'd remembered and asked for him to justify his statements. The subject immediate passed to my memory and his mindless necessity for me to give up my memory because he said I should.

Fortunately, I've been in too many discussions to even remember what on earth you're talking about. Otherwise I might have taken you back up on whatever it was if I had time.

Hilarious.


spin

aChristian

It appears to me that you just don't understand the textual criticism points he made well enough to answer him. You have yet to answer his points that show the flaws with the W-H theory.

spin

Evidence is what he needs to provide, not as is usual just uncited claims. I have actually responded to a lot of his spurious claims on their face value in this thread.


spin

aChristian

For what it's worth, we read from the KJV every night and we understand it. Of course I was raised reading it in church and so it is easier for me. I do like some of the newer translations, especially the NIV, however they are all based on an inferior Greek text. (The Greek text they are based on is not horrible, but it is not as good as the TR or majority text.) It's nice to have the assurance that you get when reading the KJV that it doesn't deviate from the original text like the newer versions do.

As for the other question that someone raised in this thread, you can tell what the original text was because we have thousands of copies from different locations and different times that all agree with each other. That is hard to explain unless they all came from the same originals, the autographs.

aChristian

If you understood his claims, you could at least attempt a response. (You couldn't give a very good response because he is right.) However, your failure to answer his question just shows me that you don't know enough about textual criticism and the W-H/majority text debate to formulate a response.

aChristian

oti o pater mou meizon mou estin is the original. It is in the majority text (thousands of manuscripts from different geographic locations and different times) whereas the mou was dropped (I would guess by carelessness) in only a few (maybe only one, I would have to check to see exactly how many) manuscripts. In my opinion there is no other logical explanation with any history to back it that would explain the overwhelming majority agreement that exists.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Hi aChristian. Remember, though, spin read Hort a decade or two ago. So on any error or blunder he makes from "memory" (of course Hort did not tell spin how his methodology played out in the real world) cannot be acknowledged, spin has to divert it to some other 10,000 word essay and debate (the typical trick). Your suggestion to simply read Pickering would be a start (I gave the URL for his work on the Mark ending thread as he was one of the only writers who mentioned and discussed the incredible corruption of Codex Bezae referenced by Dean John Burgon) as Pickering points out a number of the errors and flaws in the Westcott-Hort methodology, quite concisely and clearly. On conflation he goes verse by verse, which is neat. Professor Maurice Robinson might also be a complementary good read, among others. NT Textual Criticism: Science, Art or Religion? by Andrew Wilson might be among the very best single sources.

Simpler in this case for spin would be to actually look for a dozen verses where the mass of evidence is on side and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is on the other. And then see what is in the W-H Greek or the RV (which is directly translated from the W-H Greek). And then spin could simply retract his original comments as "inoperative" (or spin could try to give a specific verse counterpoints).

And if spin wanted help finding such verses, he could simply ask. I don't have a list handy, but it would not be difficult to make one up with a smidgen of research.

aChristian, originally I thought that spin might have some familiarity with the material, and how it plays out in specific variants. (spin is fairly well informed on some early non-Bible material). Now I incline much more to what you share here, especially after watching his writing on the ECW on Acts 8:37.

Also spin as much as acknowledged that he has looked at nothing in this realm in over a decade. And apparently when he did look, he simply read and accepted the Hort mishegas. It is not surprising therefore that, while distancing himself from his own assertions based on faulty memory possibilities (memory is not the issue, since Hort never made their methodology clear when it comes to the practical case of the two alexandrian manuscripts against the great mass of evidence) he is unwilling to bite the bullet and simply say even something like:

"that is an interesting question why I have that memory.. I'll look at some verses and notes and get back to you with at least a couple of examples in a day or two .. or I will acknowledge that I misunderstood the Westcott-Hort methodology and thank you for pointing out the common error .. let us reason together. Oh, could you point me to about five verses that you know of where Vaticanus and Sinaitcus are an ultra-minority reading, to save me some research time"

Instead we get the stuff above. Prove to me everything you possibly can (why not simply read Pickering and Hills and Burgon, spin) about the Hort theories and then I may reconsider my memory. Obviously a sham, since we could go on for ten months and 100,000 words before spin would try to rummage his memory back to the issue at hand.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

John 14:28 (KJB)
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you.
If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father:
for my Father is greater than I.

NAS - for the Father is greater than I.

Thanks for your sharing on this. Such a simple dropping would be from a scribal level almost trivially easy. I tend to doubt that there was any doctrinal motivation involved whatsoever.

Shalom,
Steven Avery